India tour of Eng, June 20 - Aug 4

[Arthur Crabtree]

Rain has again gone from the forecast today. May be a shower about midday.

[Durhamfootman]

England look to be missing the bowling of Stokes

I reckon he might bowl today, unless he clearly can't. Talk is of the quick turnaround for the 5th test and what it might do to Stokes body if he does bowl, but England can win the series today, so if there is any possibility at all, and the bowlers are still struggling to find wickets, he think will. He's a better bowler than all of the others

[Arthur Crabtree]

Could rest him if England win today.

[Arthur Crabtree]

With uneven bounce and some turn, I thought England would have India all out quite quickly. Well done to these two. But maybe England also missing Basher.

[sussexpob]

These are some of the major aspects that seem important to me. To be a too team, it will need a lot of crucial strategies, plans, transitions and succession planning (never ending in this case), selections and ultimately performance to fall in place. It has been a mess for long now.

You paint the image of a modern day India that is in some form of terminal, deep decline since the Fab 4 era, but ignore any form of reality or context. India won every single home series for 12-13 years, and that achievement is dismissed without any form of respect that it is due. How many teams have managed anything close to that? Steve Waugh's dominant side didn't manage it, they drew two series at home including to one to the lowest rank NZ side they couldn't beat in three games. The West Indies only played a few home series with their great mid-70s to early 90s team, and did not manage it, only managing to avoid defeat against Pakistan in 1988 with a 9th wicket partnership that even the Windies legends playing in the game admit won the game/drew the series with some very home banker umpiring calls to balls that were clearly out. Bradman's Australia lost twice at home to England. I already listed the many home series the Fab 4 did not win, the list is long. Essentially, its beyond compare in the history of the game. Lets acknowledge that, irrespective of your view of conditions or players, because those apply to everyone and no one else managed it.

You can then ask, what about the away form? Well, to the standard you set as the "golden era", its better based on actual results. And inside those results, we have two series wins back to back away to Australia. Again, what does that mean in context of history? We can't just dismiss that as nothing - England have managed it once if we ignore the pre-MCC 1880 tours that were awarded test series status after the fact, and were in actual fact different touring sides playing different Aussie XIs in seperate matches. That was in 1928/1932-33, and the second remains the most controversial result in test history. West Indies managed it in the 80s. No one else has. So it took crickets most controversial (and subsequently rendered illegal) tactic to do it, and it took an Australia all-time bad team against arguably the best team ever to produce that situation. It is a total historical outlier, a magnificent achievement that cannot be understated.

Its hard to judge the other away form, because India have long tours of Australia and England now all the time. They want money matches and tough games that sell, its not like in the 90s or 00s when you tour Bangladesh all the time, or fulfill your requirement to pad your stats by going to play a Zimbabwe Z team in 2005. If India played a higher frequency of easy away tours, or played in those 2000s series against Pakistan where both teams so badly didn't want to lose they threw up roads and both teams settled on piling up mammoth runs, then these batsman would have better stats. Theyd win more away. I wonder what the Fab 4 records would have looked like playing Australia every 2 odd years away, or England away when they were good.

In the context of this series, its hardly like losing to England away is also a historical barometer. As discussed, the Fab 4 won 1 series in England, but there is context to that - that was an England team phasing out of a successful period. In a short space of time before that series England lost Trescothick to mental illness, Michael Vaughan had no knee left, Flintoff was fighting mental health issues and alcoholism and didn't play, Harmison was injured, Hoggard was injured, Simon Jones retired, Ashley Giles retired, and Englands openers were coming off a miserable battering in OZ where the team had their worst series in history, followed by the entire coaching staff two months before the tour being fired after the "Pedalo" incident capped off a disaster of a WC campaign......

Against this low-ebb side in total disarray, your "greatest ever India side" scraped a 1-0 victory in the series courtesy of a day 5 washout at Lords saving India at 9 down from losing. And that's sort of the reality isn't it? To beat established test nations away its usually required for them to be in some form of generational crisis or transition period. Very, very few teams win in marquee series away against a firing, fully fit, world class side. When England were an actual great side in 2011, what happened?

Ah yeah, your golden boys got embarrassed in one of the most lopsided batterings in test history. India got annihilated in 2011.

[sussexpob]

its that man Stokes with the breakthrough, picks up Rahul

[meninblue]

So much being written about bring back Virat Seems many have forgotten he was lucky to be in test squad for last 5 years. Having said that BCCI really does needs to sort a lot of thing in Indian cricket w.r.t. test cricket. The batting options are really bare after the failed succession planning and poor selections in last so many years. A quickfix won't happen. One favorable thing is that there are two home series for India after this:

2 tests between Ind - WI in India in October

2 Tests between Ind- SA in India

[Arthur Crabtree]

Woah. Had given up hope. Good to get at least one before the new ball. Disappointing that it took Stokes to cajole his suffering body into getting the wicket. But well done to him. Sort of a shame Rahul didn't get three figures.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Stokes had Gill dropped too.

Pant not coming in...

[sussexpob]

I can already sense that the response will be something along the lines of the NZ series being the proof to your argument, but again its not exactly the smoking gun you think it is. Unless you believe its realistic for a team to be unbeatable in perpetuality, then it's just part of sport. Successful teams get old, they decline, new blood comes in and needs time to develop. No side, in any mainstream sport, lasts forever. No side can lose the institutional memory, experience or quality that India has lost in recent times and not expect to go backwards - and thats before we play the law of averages and say even without that, you eventually expect to lose after such a long time based on sheer swings of luck or circumstances.

India in the space of a very short time have lost two captains of the side and their greatest all format player, their greatest spin bowler, quality stalwarts like Pujara and Shami, experienced players like Rahane who won you a test at Lords in the past. Pant literally nearly died. Jadeja is 36 and is at the stage of declining. Bumrah doesn't have much left in the tank and has to be rested, and when he plays consecutive games like this match, you can see he struggles..... That's problems with 9 players you have to overcome in the space of a couple of series.

But its a mess because we are 4 games into a series, and India could have realistically won all 3 tests before this? With a side in deep transition, making huge amounts of changes, lacking experience in key areas or depth in others, on a tour thats historically hard? I just don't get the negativity in the slightest. I think India have competed multiple times better than I expected, I thought this series had whitewash potential. England have had to work mighty hard to win 2 games, and have been outplayed in portions of every game.

You look at this series and think, if India had even a Rahane let alone a Pujara at 3, do India lose at Lords? I say no. If India had a Shami and not Thakur in the first test, do they lose? I say no..... Razor fine margins of one player of sufficient quality here and there to replace some holes, and India could find themselves in the historically unprecedented position of being 3-0 up away to an England team who are pretty good, and very good at home.

I applaud Gill and GG for what they have managed to pull out from this squad for this tour, India have done far more than realistic expectations dictate.

[meninblue]

These are some of the major aspects that seem important to me. To be a too team, it will need a lot of crucial strategies, plans, transitions and succession planning (never ending in this case), selections and ultimately performance to fall in place. It has been a mess for long now.

You paint the image of a modern day India that is in some form of terminal, deep decline since the Fab 4 era, but ignore any form of reality or context. India won every single home series for 12-13 years, and that achievement is dismissed without any form of respect that it is due. How many teams have managed anything close to that? Steve Waugh's dominant side didn't manage it, they drew two series at home including to one to the lowest rank NZ side they couldn't beat in three games. The West Indies only played a few home series with their great mid-70s to early 90s team, and did not manage it, only managing to avoid defeat against Pakistan in 1988 with a 9th wicket partnership that even the Windies legends playing in the game admit won the game/drew the series with some very home banker umpiring calls to balls that were clearly out. Bradman's Australia lost twice at home to England. I already listed the many home series the Fab 4 did not win, the list is long. Essentially, its beyond compare in the history of the game. Lets acknowledge that, irrespective of your view of conditions or players, because those apply to everyone and no one else managed it.

You can then ask, what about the away form? Well, to the standard you set as the "golden era", its better based on actual results. And inside those results, we have two series wins back to back away to Australia. Again, what does that mean in context of history? We can't just dismiss that as nothing - England have managed it once if we ignore the pre-MCC 1880 tours that were awarded test series status after the fact, and were in actual fact different touring sides playing different Aussie XIs in seperate matches. That was in 1928/1932-33, and the second remains the most controversial result in test history. West Indies managed it in the 80s. No one else has. So it took crickets most controversial (and subsequently rendered illegal) tactic to do it, and it took an Australia all-time bad team against arguably the best team ever to produce that situation. It is a total historical outlier, a magnificent achievement that cannot be understated.

Its hard to judge the other away form, because India have long tours of Australia and England now all the time. They want money matches and tough games that sell, its not like in the 90s or 00s when you tour Bangladesh all the time, or fulfill your requirement to pad your stats by going to play a Zimbabwe Z team in 2005. If India played a higher frequency of easy away tours, or played in those 2000s series against Pakistan where both teams so badly didn't want to lose they threw up roads and both teams settled on piling up mammoth runs, then these batsman would have better stats. Theyd win more away. I wonder what the Fab 4 records would have looked like playing Australia every 2 odd years away, or England away when they were good.

In the context of this series, its hardly like losing to England away is also a historical barometer. As discussed, the Fab 4 won 1 series in England, but there is context to that - that was an England team phasing out of a successful period. In a short space of time before that series England lost Trescothick to mental illness, Michael Vaughan had no knee left, Flintoff was fighting mental health issues and alcoholism and didn't play, Harmison was injured, Hoggard was injured, Simon Jones retired, Ashley Giles retired, and Englands openers were coming off a miserable battering in OZ where the team had their worst series in history, followed by the entire coaching staff two months before the tour being fired after the "Pedalo" incident capped off a disaster of a WC campaign......

Against this low-ebb side in total disarray, your "greatest ever India side" scraped a 1-0 victory in the series courtesy of a day 5 washout at Lords saving India at 9 down from losing. And that's sort of the reality isn't it? To beat established test nations away its usually required for them to be in some form of generational crisis or transition period. Very, very few teams win in marquee series away against a firing, fully fit, world class side. When England were an actual great side in 2011, what happened?

Ah yeah, your golden boys got embarrassed in one of the most lopsided batterings in test history. India got annihilated in 2011.

We are talking two different things. I have mentioned individual averages whereas you are talking about team percentage wins.

When I mentioned about individual averages of Sachin, Sehwag and Rahul Dravid and VVS there was no reference to the team records. I clearly stated 'Individual benchmarks; in my last post, not 'team records'. I have realized what Sunny, Sehwag, Sachin and Rahul achieved with terms of averages they were outliers.

Virat averaged 46.85 and the benchmark of individual averages feel from 5 to 8 runs depends on whom you compare with.

Virat (46.85), Gautam Gambhir (41.95), Chet (43.60), Ajinkya (38.46), KL Rahul (35.26), Rohit Sharma (40.57), Murlai Vijay (38.38).

India had 4 players averaging between 45 to 53 range when we consider Fab4 of Sachin, Rahul, Sehwag and VVS . Then in next batch, Virat ended up with 46.85. All of Viratm Gauti, Chet, Ajinkya, KL, Rohit, Murali Vijay were between 35 to 46.86. See this decline now in range of individual batting average of prominent players who played more tests during their times.


Sunny, Sehwag, Sachin and Rahul were outliers. The bar kept on falling. Now the last Indian great could average 46.85 while most chunk had averages between 36 to 44.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Gill goes past Jaiswal's record for the most series runs for India in England.

Plus the ton. Well done to him.

[bigfluffylemon]

Got to get some wickets with the new ball or it's a nailed on draw. Doesn't look like much is happening.

[sussexpob]

4th ton of the series for Gill. Scored as many as Sachin did in 11 less tests away in England, but clearly can't bat like him in these conditions

[sussexpob]

Woakes gets Gill a few balls before lunch. India could do with that rain, because they need it now.